H.R. 822 (National Right to Carry) Passes House

The National Right to Carry Act, a piece of legislation that would enable those with concealed carry permit in any state to carry in every other state that issues concealed carry permits, has passed the House of Representatives with flying colors. The final vote was almost 2:1 in favor of the bill, mostly along party lines with Republicans in favor of passage. Heck, even one of the representatives from Illinois rose in support of the bill, stating that he wanted the passage of the bill to send a message to the governor of his state that concealed carry needs to be enacted in that state, just like it has been in the other 49 states in the Union. The debate was fascinating to watch . . .

Republicans were calm, cool and collected in their support of the bill while Democrats came off as rambling old coots who didn’t really understand the issues involved. It was like the Nixon / JFK debate all over again.

But there was one belle of the ball. Rep. Trey Gowdy, in my opinion, takes the cake for the title of “best speaker” in this debate.

In the closing arguments of the debate he opened his remarks with a reading of the second amendment and went on to illustrate in an impassioned statement how the second amendment is treated as a “second class citizen” instead of with the same regard as the first and other amendments. His speech ended with wild applause from the Republicans in congress, which was well deserved.

Rep. Bill Pascrell, on the other hand, was the obvious loser. He opted to use the opinion of MAIG and his own position as a representative of New Jersey to talk down to the rest of Congress like a grumpy old man trying to shoo those damned kids off his lawn.

Watching the debate was like watching the typical stereotypes of Democrats come to life. It seemed like every Democrat believed law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits were no better than common criminals, and didn’t believe that the second amendment ranked on par with the sanctified first amendment.

It made me glad I moved to Virginia, and confirmed my resolve to never ever move back to New York.

The bill still has to pass the Senate (which has a Democratic majority) and be signed by the President before it becomes law, but this is the closest the measure has ever been to becoming a reality.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

87 Responses to H.R. 822 (National Right to Carry) Passes House

  1. avatarRobert says:

    Wooohoo, we won round 1. Now for the semifinals.

    • avatarNick says:

      “It’s a situation where weaker state laws become the national law,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va. He noted that some states require training for permit holders, or deny permits to those under 21 or who sell drugs to minors, commit sex offenses or are involved in domestic violence.

      So, which states ALLOW these things?

      • avatarDavid C OBrien says:

        Delaware for one requires training – it is a very expensive proposition do get a CCW in Delaware. They require a legal notice in the newspaper ($73), Fingerprints ($69), petition the superior court ($34.50), 5 resident references, 2 passport photos ($15).
        All this to be approved. Then you must take training courses which can run as much as $295.00.

        They sure make it hard and expensive.

        • avatarHSR47 says:

          PA on the other hand, requires no training, no prints (newspaper or finger); only a PICS/NICS check, a passport-size photo (my county does these on site), and 20 bucks.

        • Centre County doesn’t even require a photo. I walked in with nothing but a $20 bill and my driver’s license, they had the applications on a table, filled it out, paid $20 and left with a laminated LTCF.

        • avatarDon says:

          Sounds about right to me. Realistically, this system seems to be the most sober.

          The cost is purely administrative, within the reach of the common man, the picture is superfluous in this era where you can confirm someone’s identity from a computer terminal in a million different ways, fingerprinting everyone would be a huge administrative cost for very little crime-solving benefit later since criminals won’t get the permit, training is… eh… how many people have you met that sat through 4 or 5 years of classes and learned nothing?

          We talk a lot about tactical training and all of that but the reason guns are such good defensive implements is they are dead simple. Everyone knows which end is the dangerous end and what you pull on to make it go off. The safety information you get in a training class is the same stuff you hear EVERYWHERE over and over. I don’t think you can manage to make the decision to buy a gun, manage to get in and out of a gun store, and get a permit, let alone one trip to the a range without hearing the “rules” about a hundred times (which is GOOD). The truth is there are a lot of “dumb” people with guns (and cars, and children, and powertools), and accident rates for guns are still very low. Lower would be better of course, but awareness and open discussion will make the cultural smarter about guns, not some one-time instruction.

          Even since the 70s, you don’t see people embracing holsters with uncovered triggers anymore, it is universally considered dumb (not macho) to shoot without hearing protection, you see people talking very openly about how they secure their guns and taking this issue very seriously, as well as educating their children very strictly and methodically about gun safety. We have more issuing states than ever, and more shall issue states than ever. It’s all looking up for personal safety and awareness of responsible gun use.

          -D

        • avatarMark Shean says:

          Sounds to me like the communists running Delaware are trying their darnest to price people out of their Constitutionally protected RIGHT! What is wrong with the voters of Delaware?? Notice in the newspaper? It is no ones business!

  2. avatarChris Dumm says:

    The GOP doesn’t hold anything like a 2/3 majority in the House, so the winning majority must have included a lot of Democratic representatives as well. It won’t pass this time, but anything with such broad support has a good chance of eventually becoming law.

    • avatarBob says:

      I also watched a large chunk of the House proceedings today as pertained to H.R. 822.

      Yes, about 20% of the Democrats voted for the bill, and just a few Republicans voted against it. Here is the result as listed in the Summary of todays activities:
      5:49:58 P.M. H.R. 822 On passage – Passed by recorded vote: 272 – 154

      Follow this link to see how each Congressman voted:
      http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2011&rollnumber=852&TB_iframe=true&height=400&width=650

      If we can get 15-20% of the Senate Democrats to support it, then it will pass in the Senate. Unfortunately, the bill may never get approved for consideration, or it may die in a committee. So we really need all of you to send an email, a letter, a fax, or a phone call to your Senators.

      • avatarCoyote Gray says:

        +1 Many Democrats voted for the bill as well. Ironically, 1 or 2 of the staunchest of those who opposed, did so because they were worried about states with “Lax” permit laws; citing their own state as being part of the problem. I’m looking at you Florida.

        The most clueless though, had to be the representative from Rhode Island. He argued that this bill would make it easier for terrorist, wife abusers, and child molesters to have and carry guns legally. Because as we all know, terrorist, wife abusers and child molesters, aren’t likely to carry guns unless this bill passes.

        • avatarDirk Diggler says:

          Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz essentially called her own state of Florida out and indicated they were responsible for 1,400 felons having guns. Knowing that these stats were probably based on people who got permits before they committed crimes, you have to wonder why she would do this when no other than Tea Party fav Rep. Allen West lives in her district and has no problem calling her out. Besides, she is really ugly and has the most disgusting NJ/NYC accent

      • avatarGriffin says:

        Unless I’m even worse at math than I though it was actually 25% of the Democrats who voted for it. Dozens also cosponsored the bill.

        • avatarMike says:

          Yes. We in the gun community need to do a better job of supporting the Dems who act reasonably about guns, even if we disagree with them on other things. Because if this doesn’t get our attention, then why wouldn’t they just go back to being mainline Dems.

    • avatarTTACer says:

      The House is not the Senate, you can’t filibuster, they didn’t need a supermajority.

  3. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    I was pretty sure that we would lose round one, but I’m happy that I was wrong. Now it’s really going to get tough and we don’t have a chance of the Senate or Obama letting it through, but I’m sure that one day we’ll get it passed.

  4. avatarpaul r says:

    A win is a win, is a win, as they say! Question for the intelligencia; I live in NJ and can’t get a NJ CCW but have Florida (and others) non-resident.

    What, if anything, does this do for me either in the Garden State and/or in other states? If this ultimately becomes law, will my FL non-resident still work in PA for example?

    • avatarElliotte says:

      I’m in a similar situation living in MD. As best I can tell, and as friends can tell, you have to have your home state’s permit for it to work there, but any other permit you have will be recognized in every other state that allows CCW permits.

  5. avatarRalph says:

    Similar legislation won by 58-39 when the Senate voted in 2009, under rules that required a 60-vote supermajority for passage. The rule allowed a lot of Democrats to look good for the home folks by voting aye, because the party leaders knew there were not enough votes for passage. This time, there may be enough votes for the bill to pass, IF it comes to the Senate floor. That’s a big IF. Look for procedural trickery to try to bury this bill in committee.

    The Dems are clearly scared sh!tless, which is why Sen. Lautenbag begged POTUS to threaten a veto. I note that POTUS has done no such thing. He has enough problems, with Obamacare going to SCOTUS for consideration.

    • avatarEric S. says:

      I think Obama will sign any pro-gun legislation that comes to his desk because he knows a veto on it will screw any chance of reelection. For that reason this will probably die at the end of the Congressional session next year without having a vote in the Senate.

  6. avatarTomFox says:

    Despite my enthusiasm for expanding carry rights and Second Amendment rights into states that unduly restrict them, this bill is just bad policy, and if passed, could have negative repercussions for the movement in general. The first time somebody with a South Dakota carry permit gets in trouble in NY (and it will inevitably happen at least once), it will be a shit storm. Furthermore, it is blatantly hypocritical. A bill pushed by conservatives that forcefully removes the state’s sovereign ability to set policy within their own state and according to their self-determined needs is so hypocritical it should make you cringe. If a state wants to require a reasonable $150 mandatory safety/legal training course in order to receive a CCW, there is no justifiable reason that the Federal government should force them accept the standards of another state that may require nothing more than a background check required when purchasing a firearm through an FFL and a $50 dollar registration fee.

    The bill is so poorly designed it is obviously not written to pass, but instead, its purpose is to be used as a political weapon against Senate Democrats and the President. There are myriad ways this bill could be written to reduce the abstruse reciprocity system currently in place and remove potential legal problems for law abiding CCW holders while outside of their home state. I can immediately think of two blatantly obvious and acceptable alternatives that both the President and enough Senate Democrats could support to ensure passage:
    1. Rather than encouraging states to compete to have the most lax CCW standards to attract revenue from residents of other states, set a Federal standard, which would probably be on the stricter side of CCW permit regulations. CCW permits from any state meeting this standard would have reciprocity in all states that issue.
    2. Create a national CCW supplemental permit that would enable reciprocity in all states that issue. This national standard would have reasonable requirements like a safety course and course on use of force regulations in different states.

    I’ sure people here could come up with modifications to these ideas or better ideas in and of themselves. I am disgusted by people who use Second Amendment rights as a political weapon against their partisan enemies. Second Amendment rights are sacred and should be treated as such.

    • avatarMatt G. says:

      This was my thinking at first as well. Then I thought about it and realized that the the fed cannot infringe on the states rights to limit ccw carriers, because the states have no right to limit ccw at all. The second amendment is federal law and includes the word “bear” meaning to carry. federal law trumps state law, therefore, the states have no right to restrict the carry of weapons, therefore, that (non-existent) right cannot be infringed by this law.

      Am I making sense?

      • avatarjkp says:

        No, you aren’t.There’s nothing so far expressed or implied by the Supreme Court indicating that *concealed* carry cannot be infringed by the states. They could simply say: okay, open carry all you want, but do not conceal. (Would that politically be tenable? Possibly not. But I haven’t seen a good argument that CONCEALED carry is a RIGHT protected by the 2d Amendment.)

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Carrying is carrying – the amendment doesn’t specify how it’s carried, thus both forms are fair game. I’m curious what other amendments you think we should start restricting the hell out of to satisfy paranoid control freaks.

        • avatarjkp says:

          I don’t, but thanks for publishing a lie about me. :-P I write only as someone who wishes to remain true to the text and original intent of the Constitution.

          Of course I support concealed-carry, and frankly wish the several states would all implement constitutional carry like Arizona. The question presented, however, is: does the Second Amendment to the Constitution protect a ***RIGHT*** (i.e., cannot be legislated away,) to carry a CONCEALED firearm?

          It’s arguable, but given that:

          (a) The amendment does not specifically state anything about concealed carry – it just says ‘the right to keep and bear arms’;

          (b) The Supreme Court has thus far not made any ruling on concealed carry;

          (c) In the HELLER case, the Court (remember: the opinion was written by Justice Scalia,) stated that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” I reasonably infer from this that there may be some latitude in regulating the type of carry;

          (d) I have not seen any evidence that the original intent of the founding fathers was to protect concealed carry. (I’m willing to entertain any evidence one way or another, if you have any;) and

          (e) The wording of the Second Amendment itself is actually not as strong as the wording in other amendments, specifically the first. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall MAKE NO LAW…” The Second Amendment states that the “Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Why did they use different wording? If they meant the Second Amendment to be as expansive as the first, why didn’t they just write “Congress shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear arms”?

          This leads me to say: as gratifying as it would be to see every concealed carry restriction struck down by the Supreme Court in one fell swoop, I just don’t see it happening.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          ” I write only as someone who wishes to remain true to the text and original intent of the Constitution.”

          False. You’re claiming that the second amendment would disallow high capacity magazines and automatic weapons. They specifically said “arms” meaning weapons, period.

          Secondly, again, the amendment does not specify how arms are carried. Just because biased judges don’t want people to have concealed weapons doesn’t change that the second amendment doesn’t forbid carrying concealed weapons.

        • avatarShaun61 says:

          Just looking at the actual construction of the 1st & 2nd Amendments, I think “Shall not be infringed” is much stronger and broader than “Make no law.” The fact that the 1st Amendment proscribes congress from making a law implies that states COULD make their own laws restricting freedom of speech. But the 2nd Amendment’s construction suggests that not only shall congress not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but no other entity (i.e.m state or local governments) shall be allowed to infringe upon that right.

        • avatarMark Shean says:

          Article lV protects the “Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states” the Privileges and Immunities clause; States have no rights to deny Privileges and Immunities granted by other states. Concealed carry is a ‘privilege’ granted by your state, right?

          Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment.

          The Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the 14th Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringment.

          Congress has the power to regulate commerce which includes the power to remove state barriers to free interstate travel.

          Article lV, Sec. 1 of the Constitution reads: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
          This is why you do not need 50 drivers licenses-

          If the Senate blocks this carry bill we will know they refuse to listen to the will of the people, that will be the end of all their political corruption come election time!

      • avatarPro libertate says:

        Exactly

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      United States Constitution, Amendment 14; Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Due process and equal protection; need I say more? State’s rights my arse. Perfection is the enemy of the good.

      From John Richardson at Only Guns and Money; “In their call to states rights, Mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York and Thomas Menino of Boston remind me of a certain Alabama governor who famously said in his inaugural speech “and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” You just need to replace the word segregation with gun control and you have essentially the same argument that George Wallace made in 1963. Wallace repudiated his words late in his life saying they were one of his life’s biggest regrets. I doubt Bloomberg and Menino will ever repudiate their anti-gun rights bigotry. “.

      The right to self defense, and the concomitant right to effective tools to assure that right, is a fundamental and essential human and civil right. The States have no more right to tell anyone how they can or cannot defend themselves than they have to tell one what they must have for breakfast. This isn’t about State’s rights, this is about fundamental human rights.

    • avatarLevi B says:

      “If a state wants to require a reasonable $150 mandatory safety/legal training course in order to receive a CCW”
      Then I think you should have to pass a college level English course before you can exercise your first amendment rights. And the 4th amendment should only apply to a certain square footage in your home, the rest is up for grabs!

      Why do so many gun owners adopt the arguments of gun grabbers?! It’s infuriating!

      • avatarAndy T says:

        You cannot accidentally kill someone with your voice… It’s the same reason we have driver’s training, b/c you can kill someone with a car if you’re a moron. Would you be in favor of getting rid of driver’s exams as well then? (I am a gun owner, not a grabber, btw)

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Wrong. Words can easily incite others to kill (see Islam for a great example) and just like with ccw laws, each state sets their own rules for getting a drivers license and every state must accept it. The states with the lowest requirements for drivers licensing are putting FAR more people at risk, yet I don’t hear a peep about that from people like you.

          Just because you’re a gun owner doesn’t mean you’re not screwed up enough to be a gun grabber too – just how so many LEO’s have the mentality that guns are OK for them – just not for anyone else. You seem to share that view that only those you deem worthy should be allowed to possess a gun.

        • avatarLevi B says:

          Funny, I don’t recall the right to drive in the bill of rights.

    • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

      The national standard should do exactly what the second amendment already states. I’ve taken several gun classes and I’m sure I’ll continue to do so, but no one should be forced to pay and take any class against their will.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      “If a state wants to require a reasonable $150 mandatory safety/legal training course”

      Sorry, did anyone else laugh at this sentence?

      The problem with your suggestions is that they then create a national Federal database of gun owners (or at least those with ccw). With the current bill, the registration stops at the state level and still allows citizens of a state to control what requirements their state has. If someone from South Dakota gets in trouble in NY, the only thing you could reasonably try to claim is that South Dakota needs to toughen up their ccw rules – nothing more. Some people are idiots, some people just make mistakes. Neither of those things make national reciprocity a bad idea. Do you complain about there not being a federal standard for driving tests? I doubt it – this is no different than every state having to accept a drivers license from another state.

    • avatarPro libertate says:

      Just…no

    • avatarGlenn L. says:

      Just because concealed carry states must recognize carry permits from other states under this bill, they won’t be required to adhere to the carry regulations in those states. Permitted gun carriers must still abide by the carry laws and limitations of the states in which they are carrying. This is NOT a federal carry permit program, but instead a reciprocity program designed to allow citizens to protect themselves in states other than their home states. It stands to reason that if I am not a resident of a state that I would not be able to apply for carry privileges in that state. This bill simply makes it possible for me to defend myself or my family wherever I plan to travel.

  7. avatarMatt G. says:

    Don’t get excited folks. The only reason a lot of those “people” voted for it us because they know it has very little chance if making it past the senate and no chance if making it past the white house.

    They are not your friends.

  8. avatarDan says:

    Every law abiding citizen of the United States should be able to carry a firearm where ever they want. The Second Amendment guarantees that right to us. If we are guaranteed this right, why do we have to be issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm?

    This bill (HR 822) is a badly written bill with many flaws and if passed by the Senate could come back to bite gun owners everywhere. Just one aspect of this bill would require that the federal government to establish a national data base of all citizens who hold a concealed carry permit. Is that what we want? I don’t think so. Just because this bill claims to support broader concealed carry rights, it doesn’t mean that it will end up being all that Second Amendment friendly.

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Dan, come on man. “Just one aspect of this bill would require that the federal government to establish a national data base of all citizens who hold a concealed carry permit. Is that what we want? I don’t think so.” Do you not think that, in this day and age, something like that couldn’t/wouldn’t happen, either on the books or off of the books? Do you not think that the .gov can’t put together any kind of data base they want. Do you honestly think that some law or a federal regulation will prevent abuse of the nearly limitless mountains of data already existing in the public sphere? Dude, seriously?

  9. avatarMark says:

    Damn. I thought I wouldn’t post my comment on a gun forum because I thought I’d get flamed. I’m happy to see several posters have my same opinion.In short I’m all about the Second Amendment and I carry in all states, but we cannot infringe on states rights as much as I would like to see everyone be able to carry in all states. Pressure must be applied to these commie states (Ilinois, New York) to bring forth legislation so the citizens can carry legally.

    • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

      Matt, we’re not infringing on any states rights, the states are infringing on our rights. I love that you called them COMMIE states because I love referring to all the gun grabbing states as COMMIES, but we don’t need to pressure these COMMIES into obeying the second amendment we need to FORCE them to do so.

  10. avatarjoe says:

    Both of the Seanators from RI are totally anti-2nd Amendment-that ignorant turd Whitehouse actually said the individual right to bear arms was “invented”by a right wing SCOTUS.
    Of course he and his rich friends shoot skeet with multi-thousand dollar shotguns.They’re the “right sort”of folks,dont’cha know.
    Reed is a worm who ranted about gun control for 20 minutes at my daughter’s college graduation – a real scumbag.I guess he wasn’t grabbing a few mil from the bankers that week.

  11. avatarDan says:

    Question…I live in Illinois but have a Florida CC permit. Would this law make it legal to carry in Illinois? Or would Illinois’ draconian gun laws override the bill?

    • avatarJD says:

      With this Bill A CCW permit would have to be recognized by every state just like a drivers license. Further more you would have to abide by the concealed weapon laws of the state that you carry in, so by that wording of the bill you would not be able to carry in Illinois because by their state laws you can’t carry concealed anywhere in that state. If I’m wrong someone please tell me otherwise. Point blank this bill is setting up for a Federal CCW permit, and in my mind that is the only way we are going to be able to carry in all 50 states. But that won’t happen and shouldn’t happen because that would be infringing on states rights to choose where they deem it safe to carry in their state. I believe that every state is different in many different ways and more populated area’s need certain requirements i.e. live fire training and use of force training to ensure the safety of others around them and being aware of your surroundings. Common Sense dictates that you don’t shoot into a crowd of people and that you realize that you bullet may travel further than your target. But COMMON SENSE is not a born attribute of everyone. I agree that concealed carry can and has saved countless lives over the years, but it can and has taken many innocent lives as well due to substandard marksmanship and poor COMMON SENSE. I Carry in Louisiana and I have taken classes and my wife has taken classes to ensure that we understand the laws and regulations of Louisiana. We shoot at least once a month to make sure we hone in our marksmanship skills and put each other through scenario’s to make sure we make the right decision to draw and fire or keep our heads down. We are Vigilant and we are prepared for the worse and if you carry concealed or plan on carrying concealed you should be too.

    • avatarTeeJaw says:

      As I understand it Illinois is the one state in which this bill, should it become law, would not apply because Illinois does not issue statewide permits to anyone (except Aldermen and other gangsters in Chicago).

      Another quirk of the bill is that it might not allow you to use a permit from a state in which you are not a resident to carry in your home state. I could be wrong, but I think I read that and it’s what I’d expect.

  12. avatarTR says:

    Where in the 2A does it specify that we can only open carry when we exercise our right? Where does it say that we can only carry a limited number of rounds? Where does it outline the times and places and situations we can carry in? The issue is the same as if would be if it were the First Amendment–it is a universal right. Not a ‘States’ right. Not a Federally regulated right. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED to me means any place, any time, any way. If you want to carry in your pants, on your belt, under your shirt, in a boot, in your trunk, in a wooden leg, etc. your rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    • avatarJD says:

      And here is the problem it does not specify. It does not specify because they didn’t have the issue of automatic weapons so easily concealed or 15 round semi-auto pistols that fit in you pocket. These are factors of today’s society not factors of the 1700′s or the 1800′s. As times and technology change Laws must change and adapt to ensure the safety of all. Such as the law that violent criminals can’t legally posses or purchase firearms. If you are claim to cling onto the statement that the 2nd amendment should be taken literally and outright then let the criminals legally posses guns as well. I am all for letting law abiding citizens have their right to keep and bear arms wherever and whenever they want, I practice this right whenever it is in my legal power to do so. The simple fact is we need laws to limit some people from obtaining a means to commit the crimes they have chosen to commit.

      Criminals will always find a gun, so get your permit train yourself for the worse and hope for the best.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        I stopped reading your post after you announced you were a gun grabber with your “they didn’t have the issue of automatic weapons so easily concealed or 15 round semi-auto pistols that fit in you pocket” statement.

        I’m curious, do you have nightmares about the shoulder thingy that flips up?

        • avatarJD says:

          No I’m just a realist. I have an M4 and an AK and several shotguns and pistols. All LAW ABIDING citizens should be able to have any gun they want, just keep them away from the criminals.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          The easy solution to that is if someone commits a violent crime to make sure that they’d never in a position to get guns or any other weapon again – meaning either life imprisonment or death. Until you do either of those, you’ll never stop criminals from getting guns. Even in countries that ban guns, criminals still get them.

        • avatarJD says:

          And I totally agree that criminals will always be able to get a gun, but just because they will get a gun, no matter what, doesn’t mean we should make it any easier for them. Which is why we have background checks and laws and permits. To make it easier on law enforcement to be able to distinguish between a law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd Amendment right and a person with the intent of using the gun as a weapon in a crime.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          “To make it easier on law enforcement to be able to distinguish between a law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd Amendment right and a person with the intent of using the gun as a weapon in a crime.”

          You’re kidding, right? We’ve all seen the police harassment of law abiding citizens who carry guns. If the police respond to a call about someone with a gun, they do NOT ask if you’re a felon or have a concealed carry permit, they treat you like Charles Manson regardless…so how exactly does this make it “easier” on anyone?

  13. avatarJavier E says:

    One down. Now weed need every body to write, call, e-mail and outright annoy their Senators to vote for it.

  14. avatarBuliwyf says:

    Before we all jump up and down and yell ” we won, we won” think about this. If this bill passed by a 2-1 margin then it must be something they all wanted. This could be a wolf in sheeps clothing and be the start of a national firearm registry.

  15. avatarRalph says:

    If I read one more comment about “states rights,” my head is going to explode. Read the Constitution and find the words “states rights.” Wait, don’t bother. The words aren’t there. States do not have rights, especially the right to discriminate against licensed CCW holders.

    The logic that says that this bill somehow mysteriously “opens the door” to something horrid sounds like a scene from “Halloween.” How this bill will lead to a national gun registry is beyond my comprehension. Even the gungrabbers — who think we’re a bunch of ignorant knuckle draggers — had no idea that the tinfoil hat crowd around here would buy into that nonsense. Right now, MAIG, the Bradys and the Joyce Foundation are laughing at us for being so easily led.

    I know that we don’t trust the government. We shouldn’t, ever, but how about a little common sense?

  16. avatarEric S. says:

    I think they mean this:

    Amendment 10:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  17. avatarTeeJaw says:

    This bill, should it become law, would seem to create a rather strange situation in some states. The states themselves would have the power to fix this, but it would seem that someone from a “shall issue” state with a permit could carry in a “may issue” state such as New Jersey or New York or California although most residents of those states can not carry because under may-issue laws only political cronies and celebrities can get permits [Connecticut excepted]. I’m assuming of course the residents of may-issue states will be required to have hard-to-obtain permits from their home state in order to obtain any relief under this bill.

    Strange situations already exist, of course, such as Massachusetts where it is easier for non-residents to get CCW permits than for most residents.

  18. avatarSilver says:

    Lovely as it would be for this to pass, it has no chance of getting past the prez. Maybe one day when we have a real President in office.

    Also, I side with those here saying to hell with states’ rights in regards to this matter. The states never had any right to restrict carry in the first place, so this is just fixing an unconstitutional infringement, not stepping on any state’s rights. States answer to the Constitution before they get to make their own rules.

  19. avatarDavid says:

    I have a CCW issued in CA (no easy feat I can assure you) and a CCW issued in Utah, Nevada and Washington State. I travel through Orgeon often as I have an elderly family member in Washington and recently applied for a non-resident CCW in Oregon. Oregon law make the CCW issuance a shall issue for qualified residents and a may issue for non-residents in neighboring states. I have lots of training and qualify 5 times a year for my various permits. I also have a very ‘good cause’ to carry, but not good enough for Oregon. I was denied a permit there a couple of months ago. So When I am driving up there I pull over and take my loaded gun off of my person and place it in the trunk until I hit Washington. Nice huh? I really hope that this bill does become law some day soon as I think it is much safer for that pistol to be tucked away.

  20. avatarGriffin says:

    The truth about H.R. 822 is that 25% of the House Democrats voted for the bill. Dozens also cosponsored it.

    Focus on the prize here guys – our enemies are those who are anti-gun, not a political party.Painting all Democrats as anti-gun zealots hurts our cause. In fact it strengthens the anti-gun cause as it vastly overstates the influence of the anti-gun zealots.

    Of course if you aren’t really pro-gun but instead just anti-Democrat then by all means continue the partisan rhetoric.

    My Blue state of New Mexico has far better laws related to open carry, concealed carry, car carry, gun ownership (including class III weapons), gun registry, etc. than the many of Red States. Many of these laws, such as our concealed carry law, were championed by Democrats.

    Contrast this against the more restrictive gun laws that prevail in far too many of Red states which were often championed and passed by the GOP.

    Don’t rest on your laurels just because you’re a Republican (or any party). We should be encouraging all who are pro-gun to continue the fight (even if they aren’t in your party) and focus our vitriol on the specific individuals who are anti-gun. We also need to focus more efforts on our own individual states and encourage all of our state politicians to pass more gun friendly legislation while repealing restrictive legislation.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Painting all Democrats as anti-gun zealots hurts our cause.

      Correct. Only 75% of Democrats are anti-gun zealots. The other 25% are political opportunists who can read tea-leaves. As opposed to Republicans, who are 75% political opportunists who can read tea leaves, and 25% pro-gun zealots. I’ll stick with the Republicans because I have no option.

  21. avatarDT says:

    Anybody know when will this go to congress?

    • avatarBob says:

      It just was passed in the Congress. I assume it will go to the Senate in a few days. (I don’t know how that process works.)

  22. avatarGerry S. says:

    People have rights, states don’t. States have powers, and they only have those powers not prohibited them by the constitution. One power they were prohibited is the infringement of our (the people) right to keep and bear arms. Let’s stop making the same mistake many of our unfortunately uninformed law makers are making. This can’t be a states rights issue because states rights DON’T EXIST.

    • avatarMALTHUS says:

      From “The Articles of Confederation,” Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781:”Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and RIGHT, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

      Question: Did ratification of the US Constitution of 1787 and adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1789 extirpate the rights of the several states?

      Or phrased differently, does the US Constitution create a Unitary State instead of a union of states?If the states ceded all their rights to a unitary government, how did the people retain their own “sovereignty, freedom, and independence,” and “power, jurisdiction, and right” after the ratification of 1787?

      Does the BOR recover the people’s rights lost in 1787 or merely enumerate rights that are already implied in the US Constitution?

      If the BOR is meant to reconvey lost rights, do the states recover rights lost in 1787 by insertion of the 10th Amendment?

    • avatarDon says:

      Exactly, because government and systems of rule are arbitrary constructs defined and agreed upon by collections of individuals… not magical or mystical decrees that are commanded from on high and are forever absolute. Without the individual none of it exists, none of it has any power.

      -D

  23. avatarTom says:

    This will never pass the Senate. It will call the Democrats out on gun control.

  24. avatarOpsMarine says:

    This is wonderful and I hope it becomes law. Gun owners across the land are smiling.

  25. I hope it passes the Senate so we can see what the weak-ass president will do with it.

  26. avatarenok says:

    it may be because thr dems think they would be exterminated………..(in reply to tom above)

  27. avatarJim says:

    I am glad that the house pass this long over due legislation. I pray that the US Senate has the courage to pass it through. It is a law that needed to be in place many years ago. I have been a long time law enforcement officer and see no need to restrict law abiding citizens rights to self defence when they travel across state lines. The arguments given are all very shallow and make no sence. In my 23 years working the streets as a police officer the criminals always have guns and the honest people need the rights to protect themselves when they travel for work such as truckers, sales people and families who vacation. Hope this time it is not blocked by the same people in the Senate.

  28. avatarPJ2ndAmendment says:

    The Founders delivered us this free Country! The were smart enough to do that. Does the left wing communist faction think that they were stupid enough as to be REDUNDANT? Two words… Keep, and Bear. One means to possess, with possess as defined as to own by the Oxford Dictionary. Bear is defined first as to carry. Both definitions listed in the Oxford Dictionary. Does not the English Language and its words have specific meanings? Or, is the left wing just to stupid to understand English. Perhaps Russian… OR maybe CHINESE might be better understood by the left wing anti-gun faction in this country. Maybe some of them(Left Wingers) might find some of the sticks and stones(Relics) the Revolutionary Guard/Minute Men used to fight off the British back in the 1780′s so we could include them in a museum. Oh… No… Wait… they used guns. Stupid me!

  29. avatarMark Shean says:

    Article lV protects the “Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states” the Privileges and Immunities clause; States have no rights to deny Privileges and Immunities granted by other states. Concealed carry is a ‘privilege’ granted by your state, right?

    Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment.

    The Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the 14th Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringment.

    Congress has the power to regulate commerce which includes the power to remove state barriers to free interstate travel.

    Article lV, Sec. 1 of the Constitution reads: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
    This is why you do not need 50 drivers licenses-

    If the Senate blocks this carry bill we will know they refuse to listen to the will of the people, that will be the end of all their political corruption come election time!

  30. avatarMark Shean says:

    All the Commucrats that have been yelling for National Gun Registration for years are all suddenly ‘born again’ states rights advocates in the aftermath of H.R.822, kinda funny aint it boys….

  31. Statistics show that millions of people are now searching online for services or information about companies. Would you like to be the one they choose? We have been helping companies reach their full potential, rise above their competition and finally get an excellent return of investment. Why not give it a try? It

  32. avatarVNVetGuy says:

    The wimps in the Senate will never pass this. Lets try again next year when we win the Presidency, the House and Senate. GOD BLESS AMERICA !
    Don’t forget “Get out and VOTE”.

  33. avatarJeff Lewis says:

    Does anyone know when this bill will go to the US Senate? Not sure if I should spend the money for an out-of-state licence to extend the states I can carry in. Also Its about time. the way I look the CCW licence is, If you live in Ohio you shouldn’t have to get a licence in Kentucky to drive in that state too. Let’s hope this will pass quickly so we a country can be on the same page across the nation.

  34. avatarBen Dover says:

    This bill is just a stepping stone. How will it deal with the differences in state restrictions? “I didn’t know!!! It’s different in my state!!!” isn’t going to fly when they’re arresting you. They will have to have an official source for each state’s restrictions in one place. If they’re going to go this far requiring a permit it needs to be a national permit with limited national restrictions.

  35. avatarDan Cunningham says:

    Let’s be careful what we are asking for. A national reciprocity law puts Gun control at a federal level and diminishes States abilities to negotiate, or defend their gun laws. I think there is a power grab that many in government are waiting to jump on as soon as something like this is passed. Think EPA… Sounded good at the beginning but look at it now. And with the current president’s lack of concern for the rule of law and his tendancy to appoint radial departmental Czars, can we risk the Feds having this control??? Just a fearful thought that passed through my untrusting (of government) mind.

  36. avatarJeff Lewis says:

    Has anyone heard when of if this will be heard in Congress?

  37. avatarstan1137@sbcglobal.net says:

    Senate Leader Harry Reid will exercise the “pocket veto” by not scheduling this bill for a vote. There is very little reason to expect the Democratic Senate to be counted regarding this issue because if the bill somehow passed the Senate, the president would be forced to “be counted.” He will never risk alienating the huge numbers of 2nd Amendment and constitutional supporters in this election year.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.